Abstract
ABSTRACT This article compares counterspace experiences in two informal settlements in Istanbul to explicate the factors that make it more/less likely for such spaces to be formed and maintained. Building on Lefebvre, we conceptualize counterspaces as places where land and housing are decommodified, spatial plans prioritize the use-value of property over its exchange value, and the basic needs of inhabitants are collectively provisioned to a significant extent. As such, they are similar to “urban commons” and face similar governance challenges. In both 1 Mayıs and Küçük Armutlu, revolutionary leftist groups have attempted to build counterspaces during the formative years of the settlements. While one of the neighborhoods failed in maintaining its counter-characteristics, the other has succeeded despite facing similar levels of pressure from without and within. We explain this puzzle by focusing on three factors: level of physical threat from state actors; legal status of the settlements; and structures and strategies of pro-counterspace organizations in the settlements. Together, these factors created conditions that undermine or reinforce solidarity, collaboration, and grassroot participation which are vital for the maintenance of counterspaces. Our findings are based on semi-structured interviews and informal group discussions conducted with community members.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
